>the posts/debates seem to be better over on Fritz's board

LOL! Thats cause Fritz bans everyone who bitch slaps him and his
uninformed opinions. Hes a wimp. Its a liberal circle jerk paradise.

On Oct 5, 1:04 pm, ReallyAngryIndo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Great man, really great! I'm turning into a career college student I
> think. The posts/debates seem to be better over on Fritz's board so
> I'll prolly post over there more. See you over there!
>
> On Oct 5, 11:56 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > RAI,
>
> > Sorry man, did not realize it was you with a new ID. How you been?
>
> > On Oct 5, 11:37 am, ReallyAngryIndo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Oh I can be much worse Zeb...I warned you, I can be civil but I
> > > respond to insults in kind. So is it gonna be more of the same, or are
> > > we going to debate today?
>
> > > And wtf you mean "New Guy" Hollywood?!
>
> > > On Oct 5, 10:37 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > >Do you want to keep it civil today?
>
> > > > Do you mean like this?:
>
> > > > - your pointless fucking
> > > > - You don't make fucking sense.
> > > > - 10 fucking
> > > > - your fucking ranting insults.
> > > > - Well fuck you cake-boy
> > > > - you are a fucking idiot.
> > > > - what the fuck a debate is
> > > > - the ranting of degenerate, stupid fucking pricks like yourself.
> > > > - find it overrun by nerd raging assholes
>
> > > > And all in one post LOL!
>
> > > > On Oct 5, 10:42 am, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Chuckle....
>
> > > > > I think I'm going to go cry now. The little board fairy said my wrists
> > > > > are limp.
>
> > > > > And so what if I chat on aol all day, I can't help it that I love kids
> > > > > so much. I just wish that skinny twerp will let me eat some of those
> > > > > cookies next time.
>
> > > > > Coffee time..  I've got class for a little bit today but after that,
> > > > > well, I'll have all day to chat with you Zeb. Do you want to keep it
> > > > > civil today?
>
> > > > > On Oct 5, 9:23 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Listen, you limp-wristed sissy boy, I don't have the time or
> > > > > > inclination to follow the links to the twisted web sites you 
> > > > > > frequent
> > > > > > just to try to divine some sort of sense out of your ranting. If you
> > > > > > have an opinion and facts, state  them yourself or go back to the 
> > > > > > AOL
> > > > > > teen chat room to which you are more suited.
>
> > > > > > On Oct 4, 1:44 am, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Listen up numb-nuts. I'm sick and gd tired of your pointless 
> > > > > > > fucking
> > > > > > > ranting. You don't make fucking sense. I posted like 10 fucking
> > > > > > > articles by various sources all stating that bush tried to expand
> > > > > > > executive power more-so than any other president. All you have 
> > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > as proof to the opposite is your fucking ranting insults. Well 
> > > > > > > fuck
> > > > > > > you cake-boy, two can play that game.
>
> > > > > > > It's pointless to try to debate with you, you are a fucking 
> > > > > > > idiot. I
> > > > > > > wish turtle and perp would come back here, I can see now why most 
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the sensible people on this board left. Plain, holly and a couple
> > > > > > > others are the only people on this gd board with enough sense to 
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > what the fuck a debate is. This board is filled with the ranting 
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > degenerate, stupid fucking pricks like yourself. I leave this 
> > > > > > > board
> > > > > > > for a while and come back to find it overrun by nerd raging 
> > > > > > > assholes
> > > > > > > who think the word "proof" is the sound a fucking genie makes 
> > > > > > > when it
> > > > > > > dissapears.
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 3, 11:03 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Holly,
> > > > > > > >  You're just plain butt assed stupid. Whether or not I served 
> > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > military has nothing what so fucking ever to do with the 
> > > > > > > > President
> > > > > > > > getting input from his commanders in the field to make 
> > > > > > > > decisions. But
> > > > > > > > keep talking. You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper 
> > > > > > > > into your
> > > > > > > > moron's abyss.
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 5:11 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> 
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Zeb,
>
> > > > > > > > > Jeez, but you're an idiot. Have you ever actually served in 
> > > > > > > > > the U.S.
> > > > > > > > > military? You have any idea what you're talking about?
>
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 3:47 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Yeah, yer right bright boy! Why would the commander in 
> > > > > > > > > > chief want to
> > > > > > > > > > speak to the commander who is directly in charge of theater 
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > operation that he has to make a crucial decision about? 
> > > > > > > > > > LOL! Second
> > > > > > > > > > hand information is much better, huh? You really don't know 
> > > > > > > > > > when to
> > > > > > > > > > quit.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 4:31 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> 
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Zeb,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Yeah sure, go ask anyone that has actually served in the 
> > > > > > > > > > > military what
> > > > > > > > > > > "flimsy minutia" the chain of command it. Dumbass.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The POTUS can ALSO NOT speak to anyone under his command 
> > > > > > > > > > > if he chooses
> > > > > > > > > > > and instead speak to the person through the chain of 
> > > > > > > > > > > command.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 1:53 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >there is a system (called Chain of Command)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you libs try to run smokescreens behind this 
> > > > > > > > > > > > flimsy minutia. It
> > > > > > > > > > > > is so transparent. The "chain of command" is not 
> > > > > > > > > > > > something that
> > > > > > > > > > > > prevents communication between command levels. It is a 
> > > > > > > > > > > > protocol.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing more. The President can AND DOES speak to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > anyone and at any
> > > > > > > > > > > > level in the military he chooses to.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 11:15 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No one is saying it wouldn't be better if he talked 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to McCrystal more.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My point is, there is a system (called Chain of 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Command) in which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > McCrystal does not report directly to Obama. He is 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not "not doing what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > he is supposed to" by not talking to him directly. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And to imply he is,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would be false.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 3:46 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is 45 minutes with the President's time the right 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > amount in 6 months
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the top general???  Less time than what he 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > spent on trying to get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Olympics...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 2:44 pm, Hollywood 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeb,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He made his point in the very first sentance of 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > his post. What was it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you don't understand?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 8:48 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SO? WHats your point?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 11:08 pm, LimboIndo 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These are isolated incedents. Not permanent 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expansion to executive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > power. You are comparing apples and oranges.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Cheney's office has taken the lead in 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > challenging many of these laws,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > officials said, because they run counter to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an expansive view of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > executive power that Cheney has cultivated 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the past 30 years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Under the theory, Congress cannot pass laws 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that place restrictions or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requirements on how the president runs the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > military and spy agencies.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor can it pass laws giving government 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > officials the power or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > responsibility to act independently of the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > president.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mainstream legal scholars across the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > political spectrum reject
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheney's expansive view of presidential 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > authority, saying the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constitution gives Congress the power to make 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all rules and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regulations for the military and the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > executive branch and the Supreme
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Court has consistently upheld laws giving 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bureaucrats and certain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prosecutors the power to act independently of 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the president."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After an unprecedented number of signing 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > statements, the White House
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > laid low for a while.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Cheney finally couldn't contain himself 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any longer, apparently.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And here's the first Bush signing statement 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in three months , quietly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > filed away two weeks ago in response to the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deeply threatening Coastal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The law, sponsored by five Republicans from 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both houses, and passed by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unanimous consent in the Senate and by voice 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote in the House,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directs the Secretary of the Interior to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > report to Congress on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > creation of digital maps of the John H. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chafee Coastal Barrier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resources System units and other protected 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > areas under a digital
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping pilot project.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But here's what Bush's signing statement 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > says: "Section 3(c)(2) and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > section 4(c)(3)(C) and (D) purport to require 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > executive branch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > officials to submit legislative 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > recommendations to the Congress. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > executive branch shall construe such 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provisions in a manner consistent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to